- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27989 W.P. No.6932/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.6932/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: H.T. KARUNAKAR HEGDE S/O THAMMANNAHEGDE AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO.75/B MUTHYALANAGARA BANDAPPA GARDEN BENGALURU-560054. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H.M. ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. K. APARNA DIRECTOR KOLA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., W/O SRI. K.V. NAIDU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.13, 4TH CROSS FIRST MAIN, RMV 2ND STAGE DOLLARS COLONY BENGALURU-560094. 2. SRI. G. MURALIKRISHNA S/O SRI. NAIDU VELLORE CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 4TH MAIN ROAD 'HANUMAGIRI NAGAR SHANI TEMPLE BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560061. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27989 W.P. No.6932/2022 3. SRI. B. DEVARAJALU NAIDU S/O B. GOVINDARAJU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.5, 2ND CROSS BASAVESHWARA COLONY THINDLU MAIN ROAD VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560097. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADAN N, ADV., FOR SRI. NANJA REDDY P.N. ADV., FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-35), PERUSE THE SAME, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.02.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7226/2018/ VIDE ANNEXURE- A. CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 10-A OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-G & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27989 W.P. No.6932/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.02.2022 passed in O.S.No.7226/2018 by the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Muralidhar H.M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Madan N., learned counsel for Sri.Nanja Reddy P.N., learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.7226/2018 against the respondents herein seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any person/s claiming under them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is the property bearing Site No.66, assessment and Khata No.10 of Abbigere Panchayat, Medarahalli @ Myadarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27989 W.P. No.6932/2022 measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 30 feet. The defendants have filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments contending that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and further contented that the defendants have obtained the conversion order from the Deputy Commissioner on 27.04.2015 and thereafter, defendant No.2 has purchased the Site No.56 formed in Sy.No.11 measuring 40 x 30 feet vide registered sale dated 23.06.2017 and thereafter, khatha has been transferred in favour of defendant No.2 and taxes were paid to the Corporation regularly and the BBMP has accorded sanction to put up the construction and the defendant No.2 has put up the construction in the site belonged to him. 4. The parties have adduced the evidence and thereafter the petitioner-plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC seeking to appoint a Court Commissioner to conduct local investigation of site No.66, assessment and Khata No.10 of Abbigere - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27989 W.P. No.6932/2022 Panchayat, Medarahalli @ Myadarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 30 feet and submit the report. The perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application indicates that the plaintiff has not stated as to why the appointment of Court Commissioner is necessary. It is to be noticed that the suit filed by the petitioner- plaintiff is for permanent injunction and the plaintiff in the said suit is required to prove his lawful possession and disturbance of his possession by the defendants. 5. The perusal of the para No.12 of the plaint averments, the plaintiff himself has admitted that the defendants have started construction in the suit schedule property. Be that as it may, the suit being one for bare injunction, the burden is on the petitioner-plaintiff to prove that he is in lawful possession and there is a disturbance for his possession by the defendants by adducing the oral as well as documentary evidence. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27989 W.P. No.6932/2022 6. The trial Court, considering the nature of relief sought in the suit and considering the rival submissions, rejected the application. I do not find any reason or good ground to interfere with the impugned order of the trial Court calling for interference in the petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31